[Taxacom] Hoser Macrochelys Issue

[John Grehan]

Ross,



Its all well and good to claim that AM staff decided to victimize Wells but
its another thing to provide evidence. Making a defamatory comment like
this without presenting evidence of some kind is problematic, as is calling
it an ?act of bastardry?. Perhaps AM staff had good reason to exclude
access, perhaps not, but just saying so does not make it so.


No one on this list (as I my recollect) has said that Hoser is a dill (or
similar) when it comes to knowledge of the fauna he publishes on. The
current discussion is about the quality of his taxonomic work with respect
to type specimens and the code. Hoser continues to disparage in quite a
nasty way those with whom he disagrees. This use of language inevitably
makes me think that Hoser is a nasty person since I have no evidence to
contradict his language. Perhaps he is really a very nice person who
happens to prefer defamatory language about others. In biogeography there
are differences of opinion that are in severe difference at times, and yet
on this list all participants do, or make every attempt to, continue debate
in a courteous and civil manner even if differences of opinion are
expressed in a very direct way.



If the primary purpose of your message over whether Ray Hoser examined
specimens that are included in his descriptions of Macrochelys Snapping
Turtles is to highlight the point that access to specimens MUST be considered
a major factor, then one must ask whether Hoser was not provided
appropriate access to the Florida collection that led him to use a database
instead. I?ve asked Raymond about this in an earlier email, but no response
on that yet.



John Grehan


On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Stephen Thorpe
<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>wrote:

> Ross,
> I'm not sure you see the point here that your opinions are held in equally
> "high esteem" as those of Hoser, so I doubt many taxacomers will even
> bother to read your email. Anyway, let me just point out that I have been
> at the sharp end of more than my fair share of "bastardry" and exclusion
> from access to collections, but I do not seek revenge on the global
> taxonomic community by churning out self-published poor quality taxonomy.
> The best way to get back at those who have wronged you is to find a way to
> make positive and constructive contributions to taxonomy, despite their
> attempts to stop you from doing so. Gratuitous self indulgence of the kind
> that Hoser engages in helps nobody. Being badly treated is no excuse to
> behave badly!
> Cheers,
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 14/4/14, Ross Wellington <rwrossco at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Hoser Macrochelys Issue
>  To: "Frank.Krell at dmns.org" <Frank.Krell at dmns.org>,
> stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz, "Doug Yanega" <dyanega at ucr.edu>, "
> iczn-list at afriherp.org" <iczn-list at afriherp.org>, "
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "
> drtjhawkeswood at calodema.com" <drtjhawkeswood at calodema.com>
>  Received: Monday, 14 April, 2014, 6:42 AM
>
>  Hi folks,being privy to
>  various messages that have been going back and forth I have
>  refrained from comment until now and have to say only
>  this.
>  From my experiences of 30 years ago and, whilst I
>  thoroughly endorse viewing and examining Type specimens as
>  part of 'Normal Practice', I know from my own
>  experience that there are some ethical issues and
>  extenuating circumstances that complicate this scenario at
>  times. Some need to be mindful of this.
>
>  In 1984/5 Richard Wells and I published a couple
>  of articles describing new species and proposing new
>  arrangements.  All good one might say, however despite
>  Richard and I becoming somewhat infamous as a result and the
>  true/complete story is still yet to be heard by all and
>  sundry.  We were referred to as the 'Aids of
>  Zoology' and 'Taxonomic Terrorists' at the time
>  in 'peer reviewed' literature, and this was long
>  before 9/11!
>
>  Richard Wells had been a voluntary benefactor to
>  the Australian Museum (AM) in Sydney.  He had donated over
>  20,000 specimens to the AM, which at that time was over a
>  quarter of the institutions holdings amassed over 150 years.
>   These specimens had been collected at his own expense and
>  out of his own interest.  Many of these specimens were
>  highly important because not only did Richard collect
>  valuable series of specimens across (in some instances) a
>  species vast continental range but also they usually
>  included specimens that were variants and unusual specimens
>  from alternative areas that did not fit the 'normal'
>  picture of a homogenous species that was understood and
>  sorted, ie they were usually indicative of new
>  species/entities.
>
>  I had earlier been a part time employee of the AM
>  and had seen how Richard was treated to his face and behind
>  his back during his regular visits to that
>  institution.
>  Richard spent endless hours examining ALL of the
>  institutions holdings (his specimens + historical
>  collections of others).  His obvious and stated interests
>  were often overridden with specimen series collections being
>  farmed out to others (quite often students) at his expense
>  ie student colleagues of the 'powers that be' in the
>  AM.
>
>  I also spent days and days assisting Richard with
>  his endeavours to sort out the conservative approaches that
>  were in play and which masked the true diversity of
>  Australia's herpetofauna.  Richard did field work
>  across most of the Australian (vast) continent and also
>  worked in the Northern Territory Museum when it was in its
>  infancy and inspected other state institutions collections
>  as well.  His mastery of the literature and possession of
>  it is immense and legendary (he has the largest physical
>  technical library in Australia - bar none!).  Yet despite
>  all this benevolent benefactory he was disliked by many, not
>  because of an obnoxious personality, quite the contrary, it
>  was simple jealousy and the feeling of inferiority he
>  generated without trying amongst many academics.  This is
>  what comes from a life long passionate interest and
>  insatiable appetite for understanding of Australia's(in
>  particular) herpetofauna!
>
>  At that time I was in the process of describing a
>  few small semi-fossorial skinks and was working with Richard
>  on his grander plans when the AM staff decided to victimise
>  him and exclude him from further access to the
>  collections (the greatest single benefactor of Australian
>  herpetofaunal specimens in history).
>
>  This single act of bastardry was the primary
>  trigger for 'Wells and Wellington 1984/85' and
>  whilst I happily admit these documents were brief and
>  perfunctory in so far as applying the Rules of the second
>  addition of the Code that was in force at the time and way
>  below our own ideals in terms of what we would have and
>  could have included in our works (given access resources and
>  specimens) that resulted from the frustration of
>  denial.
>
>  Anyone who underestimates Richard Wells'
>  knowledge and understanding of the Australian Herpetofauna
>  is a dill.  To lump him in with Ray Hoser and use him as
>  some sort of lever to assist in eliminating both he and
>  Hoser from the herpetological taxonomic scene is doomed to
>  failure.
>
>  Ray Hoser is no dill either when it comes to
>  knowledge of the fauna he publishes on.  Collectively
>  Richard (and Rays) herpetological knowledge is vast and I
>  know Richard could debate anyone any time on Australian
>  herpetofauna with success - he does know more than any other
>  living Australian herpetologist about the Australian fauna -
>  without question!!
>
>  So where are we now.  Richard continues with his
>  interest and publishes on Australian Herpetofauna as time
>  and funds permit.  Ray Hoser obviously does his own thing
>  as well, unfortunately to the angst of many!
>
>  Nevertheless, both individuals have the right to
>  an opinion, have the right to offer that opinion in the
>  literature to the benefit or otherwise of the wider
>  community.
>  However, going down the path of censorship and
>  'control' is doomed to failure and a critical
>  analysis of where Ray is wrong would be a far more worthy
>  approach to 'personal' attacks and condemnation in
>  so called 'peer reviewed' literature which only
>  damns that label as a joke.
>
>  Getting back to the primary purpose of my message
>  and that is whether Ray Hoser examined specimens that are
>  included in his descriptions of Macrochelys Snapping Turtles
>  highlights the point that access to specimens MUST be
>  considered a major factor in the arguments currently raging
>  and in the final judgements as to whether species
>  descriptions are valid or not.
>
>  The current debate rages around the register
>  numbers of Types of new species descriptions and as to
>  whether the visible records of holdings have been changed
>  since Rays descriptions to prevent a repeat of his use of
>  electronically available registers/holdings and specimen
>  numbers.
>
>  Whether you are pro or against Ray Hoser his
>  descriptions hardly usurped the more recent geneticists from
>  naming them as many others for decades have previously
>  proposed the splitting of the species in question Ray did it
>  first!  Amateurs, quite often intuitively (as well as on
>  more solid grounds) know what are good species - Ray is one
>  of those types, irrespective of his gleaning confirmation
>  from more recent genetic analysis.
>
>  I wish you well in your sifting through this
>  imbroglio but mention the above to paint a perhaps ignored
>  component of the story!
>  regards
>  Ross Wellington
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>